cultural heritage in smart city environments · 2017-08-24 · cultural heritage in smart city...

CULTURAL HERITAGE IN SMART CITY ENVIRONMENTS

M. Angelidoua, E. Karachalioua T. Angelidoua, E. Stylianidisa

a School of Spatial Planning and Development, Faculty of Engineering, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, 54124, Greece

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Commission II

KEY WORDS: Smart city, strategy, application, urban development, touristic development, cultural heritage management

ABSTRACT:

This paper investigates how the historical and cultural heritage of cities is and can be underpinned by means of smart city tools,

solutions and applications. Smart cities stand for a conceptual technology-and-innovation driven urban development model. By

becoming ‘smart’, cities seek to achieve prosperity, effectiveness and competitiveness on multiple socio-economic levels. Although

cultural heritage is one of the many issues addressed by existing smart city strategies, and despite the documented bilateral benefits,

our research about the positioning of urban cultural heritage within three smart city strategies (Barcelona, Amsterdam, and London)

reveals fragmented approaches. Our findings suggest that the objective of cultural heritage promotion is not substantially addressed in

the investigated smart city strategies. Nevertheless, we observe that cultural heritage management can be incorporated in several

different strategic areas of the smart city, reflecting different lines of thinking and serving an array of goals, depending on the case. We

conclude that although potential applications and approaches abound, cultural heritage currently stands for a mostly unexploited asset,

presenting multiple integration opportunities within smart city contexts. We prompt for further research into bridging the two

disciplines and exploiting a variety of use cases with the purpose of enriching the current knowledge base at the intersection of cultural

heritage and smart cities.

1. INTRODUCTION

In recent years, increasing urbanisation along with a rapid

population growth in major modern cities have been impacting

the quality of citizens’ life at technical, social, economic and

organisational level. Smart city initiatives along with

Information and Communication Technology (ICT)

integration aim to advance traditional networks while

providing efficient services and public benefits urban dwellers.

While we observe that the smart city literature variably sets

forth the objectives of cultural advancement, touristic

development and heritage preservation, research into the

specificities of the relationship between urban ‘smartness’ and

cultural heritage remains limited. In addition, there is no

complete review of smart city applications used in the domain

of cultural heritage worldwide. Addressing this research gap,

in this paper we aim to examine how the historical and cultural

heritage of cities is and can be underpinned by means of smart

city tools, solutions and applications.

2. CULTURAL HERITAGE IN SMART CITY

ENVIRONMENTS

2.1 Literature review and state of play

According to UNESCO’s universally accepted definition, the

term “Cultural Heritage” refers to several main categories of

heritage (UNESCO, 2016): (i) Tangible cultural heritage:

movable cultural heritage (paintings, sculptures, coins,

manuscripts), immovable cultural heritage (monuments,

archaeological sites, and so on), underwater cultural heritage

(shipwrecks, underwater ruins and cities), (ii) Intangible

cultural heritage: oral traditions, performing arts, rituals and

(iii) Natural heritage: natural sites with cultural aspects such as

cultural landscapes, physical, biological or geological

formations. The majority of the above types of cultural

heritage can be found in the complex of a city and in many

cases they are called to coexist and be integrated in the

contemporary structures of modern cities and their

technological advances. Moreover, cultural heritage represents

a domain where sustainability of interventions, people

gratification, promotion and preservation of spaces and

artworks have to be considered in total and at the same time

(Chianese et al, 2015).

Smart cities, on the other hand, are urban settlements that make

a conscious effort to capitalise on the new ICT landscape in a

strategic way, seeking to achieve prosperity, effectiveness and

competitiveness on multiple socio-economic levels

(Angelidou, 2014). The concept of the smart city emerged

recently and is constantly being transformed by contemporary

technological and economic trends and ongoing discussions.

One of the distinctive characteristics of smart cities is the

central role of technology as a means for accumulating,

organising and making vast amounts of information accessible

to an increasing number of people (Angelidou, 2016). This

results to a technologically-enabled ecosystem which yields

improvements on the city’s functions, enhancing

environmental sustainability and rendering the city ‘smart’

(Allwinkle and Cruickshank, 2011; Angelidou, 2015; Caragliu

et al., 2009; Tranos and Gertner, 2012).

It is worthy of mention here that many smart city scholars

emphasise that smart city strategies should be adapted to local

needs and development priorities, building on existing assets

of the city and the identity of place (Angelidou, 2014;

Paskaleva, 2011; Kitchin, 2015; Schulte, 2012). What is more,

The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLII-2/W5, 2017 26th International CIPA Symposium 2017, 28 August–01 September 2017, Ottawa, Canada

This contribution has been peer-reviewed. doi:10.5194/isprs-archives-XLII-2-W5-27-2017 | © Authors 2017. CC BY 4.0 License.

27

mailto:[email protected]




local tangible and intangible assets can be highlighted and

promoted through those strategies, enabling cities to capitalise

on their competitive advantage to become more attractive to

people, tourists and businesses (Giffinger et al., 2007). In this

sense, one-size-fits-all solutions are to be avoided in the

context of smart cities. Rather, customised approaches should

be adopted, depending on the specific situation.

Vattano (2014) asserts that the integration of a city’s historical

elements into its modern reality is a significant factor towards

the advancement of its urban intelligence. The specific benefits

of including cultural heritage in a smart city initiative derive

from big data management and augmented reality (AR). Big

data management allow to store and administer great amounts

of data, beneficial for the preservation of cultural heritage, and

the sustainable monitoring of its life cycle conservation.

Meanwhile, optimising technological use in cultural heritage

management leads to cost reduction in terms of maintenance.

Further, smart city initiatives could advance cultural heritage

ontologies with AR characteristics allowing both citizens and

visitors to readily access their historical value.

Despite the abovementioned benefits, and although cultural

heritage is one of the many issues addressed by existing smart

city strategies, this takes place in an abstract and fragmented

way. For example, according to Bélissent (2010), the vision of

what kind of smart city is desired could be inspired from

different ideas: cities might envision becoming a business hub,

a tourist and heritage destination, or a manufacturing or retail

centre. Hollands (2008) observes that ICTs lie at the core of

the smart city idea, as they undergird networked infrastructures

to improve economic and political efficiency and enable

social, cultural and urban development. Amato et al. (2012)

describe a platform, tool and possible functionalities for

incorporating smart city technologies in the cultural heritage

domain. Chianese et al. (2015) propose a smart cultural

heritage architecture and platform for enhancing user

experience in cultural heritage sites. Similarly, Jara et al.

(2015) put forth an Internet of Things (IoT) function

architecture for smart towns. Garau (2014) describes a

platform that is fed through bottom-up input to aggregate,

inform, and suggest cultural heritage points of interest and

paths in the Region of Sardinia, Italy. Overall, we observe that

although occasionally important work has been done,

especially in the field of user experience and process

architecture, the available literature on the overall strategic

relationship between cultural heritage and smart cities remains

limited and abstract.

The situation is not very different in practice. In analysing 61

applications from 33 smart cities in different parts of the world,

Zubizarreta et al. (2015), found that although an abundance of

smart city applications is used in local smart city strategies,

most of them function as standalone tools, rather than

collectively contributing to an integrated vision towards

sustainable local development. In terms of existing smart city

strategies, one of the major objectives of London’s smart city

strategy is to be a world-class city in the fields of commerce

and culture (Greater London Authority, 2013); in the smart

city strategy of Barcelona, technology is seen –among others-

as an enabler for universal access to culture and education

(Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2014); with respect to the smart

city applications in the Amsterdam Smart city initiative, Lee

and Gong Hancock (2012) found that smart city applications

in the category ‘tourism/culture/sports/leisure’ count for the

26% of the smart city services portfolio. The City of Genova,

Italy has created the Smart Museum and Park arena platform,

aiming to simultaneously advance the city’s natural and

cultural heritage and safety and security in urban spaces

(Schaffers, 2011). For the city of Gold Coast (popular tourist

city in Queensland, Australia) which received an IBM Smarter

Cities Challenge Grant, Bajracharya et al. (2014) propose that

the preservation and promotion of cultural and natural

amenities should be a priority of the smart city strategy. None

of the previous approaches, however, is backed by clearly

defined objectives, processes and tools to enhance cultural

heritage through the smart city route.

Altogether we see that cultural heritage is inarguably a priority

domain of urban development policy, including smart city

development. Nevertheless, there is lack of an in-depth

definition of the strategic relationship between urban

‘smartness’ and cultural heritage, as well as lack of clarity with

respect to the included objectives, processes, and results.

2.2 A research into how cultural heritage objectives have

been incorporated in existing smart city ventures initiative

2.2.1 Research design

Inspired by the above situation, in this paper we examine how

the historical and cultural heritage of cities has been

incorporated in existing smart city strategies so far. The

methodology we use is ‘cross-case analysis’ (Yin, 2003),

whereby selected information is collected across selected cases

and then analysed comparatively in order to identify

underlying trends, patterns and relationships, allowing for the

extraction of theoretical propositions (Eisenhardt, 1989).

In this paper, we present three European smart city initiatives

which have variably addressed the issue of cultural heritage.

These include the strategies of Barcelona, Amsterdam and

London. The factors that drove our selection are (i) the

existence of a ‘cultural heritage’ component within the

strategy (be it subtle or pronounced), (ii) the maturity of the

initiatives, which is a precondition for being able to acquire the

necessary data and (iii) the availability of information through

academic and government publications (academic journal and

conference papers, theses and research reports, policy

documents).

For each case (Barcelona, Amsterdam, and London) we

collected information about:

- the scope and structure of the smart city initiative

- the specific objectives of cultural heritage promotion

within the smart city initiative and

- the particular smart city applications related to

cultural heritage which are deployed in the context

of the smart city strategy under examination

The collected data were arranged in a tabular display, which

features the above information per each case (Table 1). On the

basis of this display, the collected information was scanned

vertically and horizontally to uncover underlying patterns.

2.2.2 Field research

In the following we briefly describe the three selected cases

studies for our research, which are the smart city strategies of

Barcelona, Amsterdam, and London. For each case we provide

a brief description of the strategy’s approach and structure, as

well as the positioning of cultural heritage as a theme within

the strategy.



28

Barcelona’s Smart City strategy (Spain) is structured upon

three pillars: ‘international promotion’, ‘international

collaboration’ and ‘local projects’. The strategy has a global

outlook, seeking to forge an open environment for the

collaboration among government, industry, academia and

citizens (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2013; Angelidou, 2016;

Bakici et al., 2012; Barcelona Smart City official website,

2017; Mora and Bolici, 2015). Smart city applications can be

found in the areas of (i) smart mobility, (ii) public and social

services, (iii) environment, (iv) companies and business, (v)

research and innovation, (vi) communications, (vii)

infrastructures, (viii) tourism, (ix) citizen cooperation and (x)

international projects. Each one of the previous includes a

number of smart city programmes and projects, such as the

‘City Operation System’, the ‘Smart City Campus’, ‘Smart

Lighting’, ‘Smart Urban Mobility’ and so on -the number of

local projects is more than 100. In this strategy, among others,

technology is seen as an enabler of culture, education and

healthcare (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2014).

Amsterdam smart city (the Netherlands) is a partnership

among businesses, authorities, research institutions, and the

people of Amsterdam to reduce CO2 emissions and improve

the environmental record of the city (Amsterdam Smart City

official website, 2017; Angelidou, 2016; Lee and Gong

Hancock, 2012; Mora and Bolici, 2017). In this strategy, the

city is seen as an open platform for experimentation. Smart city

products and services are user centric, altogether contributing

to the development of more liveable urban environments.

More particularly, the majority of the included projects are

targeted towards informing citizens, entrepreneurs and the

public sector about their energy consumption and educating

them about how to manage it more prudently. Currently the

program comprises an array of projects that present innovative

ideas and new business models across Amsterdam’s

neighbourhoods. These projects fall within six thematic areas:

(i) infrastructure and technology, (ii) energy, water and waste,

(iii) mobility, (iv) circular city, (v) governance and education,

(vi) citizens and living. The projects are initially tested on a

small scale and the ones that prove to be effective are

subsequently extended to larger areas. In Amsterdam’s

strategy, cultural heritage, manifested through the city’s

canals, monuments and traditional residential areas, is

addressed as a component of urban liveability and quality of

life (Amsterdam Smart City official website, 2017).

Smart London (United Kingdom), is a smart city initiative that

began in 2013 with the formation of the Smart London Board

and the release of the Smart London Plan (Anthopoulos, 2017;

Goh, 2015; Greater London Authority, 2013, 2016; Smart

London official website, 2017). The Smart London initiative

is structured upon seven strategic priorities: (i) put Londoners

at the core, (ii) provide access to open data, (iii) leverage

London’s research, technology, and creative talent, (iv)

collaboration networks, (v) enable London to adapt and grow,

(vi) enable City Hall to better serve Londoners’ needs, (vii)

offer a ‘smarter’ experience for all. In the strategy it is

recognized that London is already a vibrant, international and

cosmopolitan business and tourist hub, one of the most

significant centres of creativity and culture globally -for this

reason the entire strategy is focused on upgrading and

enforcing these qualities. Measures loosely connected with

cultural heritage promotion can be found under the initiatives

(vi) and (vii). It can be argued that, in general lines, the

promotion of London’s cultural heritage in the context of its

smart city strategy is primarily seen as a service to citizens and

visitors, integrated with other smart city services such as city

hall services and smart mobility around the city.

Our findings per each case are presented in the following table

(Table 1). The table features the cases in three corresponding

lines and the collected data for each one of them in three

columns.

Case/

Data

Smart city

initiative

architecture

Objectives

of cultural

heritage

promotion

within

smart city

initiative

Smart city

application

s related to

cultural

heritage

Ba

rcel

on

a

Sector based:

(i) smart mobility,

(ii) public and

social services,

(iii) environment,

(iv) companies

and business,

(v) research and

innovation, (vi)

communications,

(vii)

infrastructures,

(viii) tourism, (ix)

citizen

cooperation and

(x) international

projects

Cultural

heritage

promotion is

regarded as

a touristic

developmen

t

component.

The

objective is

to preserve

and promote

cultural

heritage as a

means to

improve the

touristic

product of

the city,

attract more

visitors and

offer a rich

cultural

experience

for all

- interactive

tourist

attractions

maps

- agendas of

cultural

events

- smart

mobility

applications

/journey

planner

Am

ster

da

m

Sector based: (i)

infrastructure and

technology, (ii)

energy, water and

waste, (iii)

mobility, (iv)

circular city, (v)

governance and

education, (vi)

citizens and living

Cultural

heritage

promotion is

regarded as

a quality of

life

component.

The

objective is

to preserve

and promote

cultural

heritage as a

means to

improve the

quality of

life and

forge

liveable

urban

environment

s that invite

people to

use and

‘own’ them.

-

participator

y urban

planning

and co-

design of

public

spaces

(including

neighbourho

od based

initiatives)

- citizen-

driven

innovation

(mainly

participator

y sensing

for

environment

al

monitoring)

- an ‘Urban

guide’ to

pinpoint and

communicat

e points of



29

interest is

under

developmen

t

Lo

nd

on

Strategic priority

based: (i) put

Londoners at the

core, (ii) provide

access to open

data, (iii) leverage

London’s

research,

technology, and

creative talent,

(iv) collaboration

networks, (v)

enable London to

adapt and grow,

(vi) enable City

Hall to better

serve Londoners’

needs, (vii) offer a

‘smarter’

experience for all.

Cultural

heritage

promotion is

regarded as

part of city

hall services

to citizens

and visitors.

The

objective is

to offer an

inclusive

‘smart

London’

experience

to all -one

which will

be

responsive

to citizen

and visitors’

needs,

offering

integrated

services

across a

number of

functional

areas, such

as cultural

heritage

promotion,

transport

and

collaborativ

e

governance.

-

collaborativ

e urban

planning

and policy

making

- integrated

wayfinding

navigation

system

(journey

planner)

including

points of

interest

- clean

streets

application

Table 1. Tabular display with field research findings across the

three cases (authors’ elaboration)

2.2.3 Analysis of findings

The first overarching observation is that cultural heritage

preservation and promotion can be regarded as a

differentiating component among smart city strategies,

reflecting different lines of thinking and serving different

goals. In particular, in Barcelona’s strategy it is seen as a

touristic development component; in Amsterdam’s strategy it

is regarded as a quality of life component; and in London’s

strategy it is regarded as a public service component. These

three different approaches denote the different positioning of

cultural heritage in the context of technology led urban

development and the diverging roles that it can acquire

towards local urban and social development. This fact carries

contextual, management and technical implications about the

integration of cultural heritage development within smart

cities, which call for different courses of action depending on

the case.

Another important observation to be made is that, although

themes such as cultural, touristic, creativity and innovation

driven development, accessibility to services and quality of life

are horizontally present throughout the examined smart city

strategies, cultural heritage promotion as an objective is not

particularly pronounced in any of them. This comes as a

surprise, given that all three of the examined cities are places

endowed with rich history, vibrant culture and abundant points

of historical interest, which could play a major role towards

the enhancement of urban intelligence. In this sense, one

would expect that –at least for these cities- cultural heritage

would be used as an overarching asset upon which smart city

approaches would be built, capitalizing on the multifaceted

roles that it can play towards enhancing urban innovation,

liveability and socio-economic prosperity. Yet it seems that the

focus of smart cities tends to be geared towards more

‘fashionable’ trends of thinking about urban development,

such as liveability, inclusivity, accessibility and openness, and

cultural heritage is regarded as one of the many low-tier

components that could contribute to these objectives.

A third remark to be made regards the specific smart city

applications which are included in the strategies and pertain to

the cultural heritage preservation and promotion objective. We

observe an absence of smart city applications referring to

cultural heritage per se. Instead, the included applications have

a broader focus and attempt to integrate elements of cultural

heritage within a broader system of information and services

provision. For example, cultural points of interest are

integrated, along with other leisure and commercial

attractions, in tourist maps and agendas, or within wayfinding

applications and journey planners. There is also an array of

smart city applications that are not directly related to cultural

heritage itself, but can be regarded as external facilitators of

cultural heritage promotion. Typical examples include

collaborative (neighbourhood) city making and urban planning

applications and citizen reporting platforms.

After the above analysis, one could argue that in general lines

smart cities fail to successfully incorporate the component of

cultural heritage within smart cities and the vision towards

long term, innovation and sustainability-led urban

development. Although potential applications and approaches

abound, cultural heritage currently stands for a mostly

unexploited asset, presenting multiple integration

opportunities within smart city contexts. Most of these

opportunities are currently bypassed. In this paper we made a

first step towards mitigating this weakness, highlighting both

the specific benefits of including cultural heritage in smart city

initiatives, and several different pathways to be pursued to this

end.

3. CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we investigated the ways in which cultural

heritage is and can be incorporated in smart city strategies. To

this end, we examined three smart city strategies of large

European cities, specifically focusing our attention into the

positioning of the cultural heritage theme within the smart city

strategy, and further by investigating whether smart city

applications related to cultural heritage management exist

therein. Our findings revealed that cultural heritage is not

systematically exploited and formally incorporated in smart

city initiatives, despite the fact that it offers and array of

opportunities for smart city development, while significant

technological advancements have taken place in the cultural

heritage domain in recent years, as well.



30

Another general observation emerging from our research is

that there seems to be an integration gap between overarching

smart city solutions and site-based cultural heritage

preservation and promotion applications. Although both areas

are currently entering a phase of maturity, and share (at least

some) common concerns, they have not worked in consort so

far. It is also possible that research at the intersection of smart

cities and cultural heritage might have more to benefit by

focusing on different types of cases and methods. For example,

there might be smaller historical cities that could showcase

more advanced smart city solutions in the areas of cultural

heritage preservation and promotion, given that they will

typically encompass narrower economies and be more focused

toward touristic driven development.

The above observations and findings contribute to a deeper

understanding of how local cultural heritage can be

strategically underpinned through the smart city approach, and

namely the positioning of the cultural heritage preservation

and promotion objective in the smart city context, and which

tools and applications are available to this end. Using these

results, policy makers, researchers and developers can create

more documented, targeted and informed strategies and tools

towards incorporating cultural heritage objectives in

technology-led urban development.

REFERENCES

Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2012. Barcelona urban habitat: The

vision, approach, and projects of the City of Barcelona towards

smart cities (presentation by L. Olivella), Smart City Summit

2012, 2 July, Milano.

Available:http://www.theinnovationgroup.it/wpcontent/uploa

ds/2012/05/Olivella_City-of-Barcelona.pdf

Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2013. Barcelona Smart City; The

vision, focus and projects of the City of Barcelona in the

context of Smart Cities.

Available:http://www.slideshare.net/MicrosoftSuomi/city-

next-smartbarcelona-28102013.

Allwinkle, S. and Cruickshank, P., 2011. Creating Smart-er

Cities: An Overview. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), pp.

1-16.

Amato, F., Chianese, A., Moscato, V., Picariello, A., and

Sperli, G., 2012. SNOPS: a smart environment for cultural

heritage applications. Twelfth ACM International Workshop

on Web information and data management, pp. 49-56.

Amsterdam Smart City official website, 2016. Available:

https://amsterdamsmartcity.com/

Angelidou, M., 2016. Four European Smart City Strategies.

International Journal of Social Science Studies, 4, pp.18-30

Angelidou, M., 2015. Smart Cities: a conjuncture of four

forces. Cities, 47, pp. 95–106.

Angelidou, M., 2014. Smart city policies: A spatial approach.

Cities, 41, pp. S3-S11.

Anthopoulos, L., 2017. Smart utopia VS smart reality:

Learning by experience from 10 smart city cases. Cities, 63,

pp. 128-148.

Bajracharya, B., Cattell, D. and Khanjanasthiti, I., 2014.

Challenges and Opportunities to Develop a Smart City: A Case

Study of Gold Coast, Australia. REAL CORP 2014, 21-23

May 2014, Vienna, Austria.

Bakici, T., Almirall, E., and Wareham, J., 2012. A Smart City

Initiative: the Case of Barcelona. Journal of the knowledge

economy. Special Issue: Smart Cities and the Future Internet

in Europe, pp. 135-148.

Barcelona Smart City official website, 2017. Available:

http://smartcity.bcn.cat/en/

Bélissent, J., 2012. Governments Embrace New Modes Of

Constituent Engagement; Social Media, Mobility, And Open

Data Transform eGovernment. Forrester for CIOs: Forrester.

Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., and Nijkamp, P., 2009. Smart Cities

in Europe. Serie Research Memoranda 0048 (VU University

Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration

and Econometrics).

Chianese, A., Piccialli, F., and Valente, I., 2015. Smart

environments and cultural heritage: a novel approach to create

intelligent cultural spaces. Journal of Location Based Services,

9(3), pp. 209-234.

Eisenhardt, K. M., 1989. Building theories from case study

research. Academy of management review, 14(4), pp. 532-550.

Garau, C., 2014. Smart paths for advanced management of

cultural heritage. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 1(1), pp.

286-293.

Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., Kalasek, R., Pichler-

Milanović, N., and Meijers, E., 2007. Smart cities; Ranking of

European medium-sized cities (final report): Vienna

University of Technology, University of Ljubljana, Delft

University of Technology.

Goh, K., 2015. Who’s Smart? Whose City? The Sociopolitics

of Urban Intelligence. In Planning Support Systems and Smart

Cities, Springer, pp. 169-187.

Greater London Authority. 2016. The future of smart:

Harnessing digital innovation to make London the best city in

the world (update report of the Smart London Plan 2013).

Available: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/business-

and-economy/science-and-technology/smart-london/future-

smart

Greater London Authority, 2013. Smart London Plan.

Available:

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/smart_london_

plan.pdf

Hollands, R. G., 2008. Will the real smart city please stand up?

City, 12(3), pp. 303-320.

Jara, A. J., Sun, Y., Song, H., Bie, R., Genooud, D., and

Bocchi, Y., 2015. Internet of Things for cultural heritage of

smart cities and smart regions. 29th International Conference

on Advanced Information Networking and Applications

Workshops, pp. 668-675.



31

http://www.theinnovationgroup.it/wpcontent/uploads/2012/05/Olivella_City-of-Barcelona.pdf

http://www.theinnovationgroup.it/wpcontent/uploads/2012/05/Olivella_City-of-Barcelona.pdf

http://www.slideshare.net/MicrosoftSuomi/city-next-smartbarcelona-28102013

http://www.slideshare.net/MicrosoftSuomi/city-next-smartbarcelona-28102013

https://amsterdamsmartcity.com/

http://smartcity.bcn.cat/en/

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/business-and-economy/science-and-technology/smart-london/future-smart



https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/smart_london_plan.pdf

https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/smart_london_plan.pdf

Kitchin, R., 2015. Making sense of smart cities: addressing

present shortcomings. Cambridge Journal of Regions,

Economy and Society, 8, pp. 131-136.

Lee, J.-H., and Gong Hancock, M., 2012. Toward a framework

for Smart Cities: A Comparison of Seoul, San Francisco and

Amsterdam. Innovations for Smart Green City. What’s

Working, What’s Not and What’s Next, 26-27 June 2012,

Stanford.

Available:

http://fsi.stanford.edu/events/innovations_for_smart_green_ci

ty_whats_working_whats_not_and_whats_next/

Mora, L., and Bolici, R., 2017. How to Become a Smart City:

Learning from Amsterdam. Smart and Sustainable Planning

for Cities and Regions, Springer, pp. 251-266.

Paskaleva, K. A., 2011. The smart city: A nexus for open

innovation? Intelligent Buildings International, 3(3), pp. 153-

171.

Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Nilsson,

M. and Oliveira, A., 2011. Smart Cities and the Future

Internet: Towards Cooperation Frameworks for Open

Innovation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer.

Schulte, M. A., 2012. IDC Smart Cities Benchmark;

Deutschland 2012 (in german): IDC. Available:

https://www.karlsruhe.de/b2/wirtschaftsstandort/rankings/sta

edteranking/HF_sections/content/ZZjZJCvt1QmCTK/ZZkzT

HI8aXhrBV/IDC

Smart Cities Benchmark - Zusammenfassung für Städte und

Gemeinden.pdf Smart London official website, 2017.

Available: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/business-

and-economy/science-and-technology/smart-london

Tranos, E., and Gertner, D., 2012. Smart networked cities? The

European Journal of Social Science Research, 25(2), pp. 175-

190.

UNESCO, 2017. What is meant by "cultural heritage"?

Available:

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-

trafficking-of-cultural-property/unesco-database-of-national-

cultural-heritage-laws/frequently-asked-questions/definition-

of-the-cultural-heritage/

Vattano, S., 2014. Smart Technology for smart regeneration of

cultural heritage. Italian smart cities in comparison. In

MWF2014: Museums and the Web Florence.

Available: http://mwf2014.museumsandtheweb.com

Yin, R., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd

edition ed.). London: SAGE Publications.

Zubizarreta, I., Seravalli, A., and Arrizabalaga, S., 2015. Smart

city concept: What it is and what it should be. Journal of

Urban Planning and Development, 142(1).



32

http://fsi.stanford.edu/events/innovations_for_smart_green_city_whats_working_whats_not_and_whats_next/

http://fsi.stanford.edu/events/innovations_for_smart_green_city_whats_working_whats_not_and_whats_next/

https://www.karlsruhe.de/b2/wirtschaftsstandort/rankings/staedteranking/HF_sections/content/ZZjZJCvt1QmCTK/ZZkzTHI8aXhrBV/IDC



https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/business-and-economy/science-and-technology/smart-london

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/business-and-economy/science-and-technology/smart-london

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/illicit-trafficking-of-cultural-property/unesco-database-of-national-cultural-heritage-laws/frequently-asked-questions/definition-of-the-cultural-heritage/




http://mwf2014.museumsandtheweb.com/

cultural heritage in smart city environments · 2017-08-24 · cultural heritage in smart city...

Documents